Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: nfc: s3fwrn5: Support a UART interface

[Bongsu Jeon]

On 11/25/20, Bongsu Jeon <bongsu.jeon2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 11/24/20, krzk@xxxxxxxxxx <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 09:05:52PM +0900, Bongsu Jeon wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 5:55 PM krzk@xxxxxxxxxx <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> > > +static enum s3fwrn5_mode s3fwrn82_uart_get_mode(void *phy_id)
>>> > > +{
>>> > > +     struct s3fwrn82_uart_phy *phy = phy_id;
>>> > > +     enum s3fwrn5_mode mode;
>>> > > +
>>> > > +     mutex_lock(&phy->mutex);
>>> > > +     mode = phy->mode;
>>> > > +     mutex_unlock(&phy->mutex);
>>> > > +     return mode;
>>> > > +}
>>> >
>>> > All this duplicates I2C version. You need to start either reusing
>>> > common
>>> > blocks.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Okay. I will do refactoring on i2c.c and uart.c to make common blocks.
>>>  is it okay to separate a patch for it?
>>
>> Yes, that would be the best - refactor the driver to split some common
>> methods and then in next patch add new s3fwrn82 UART driver.
>>
>>> > > +
>>> > > +static int s3fwrn82_uart_write(void *phy_id, struct sk_buff *out)
>>> > > +{
>>> > > +     struct s3fwrn82_uart_phy *phy = phy_id;
>>> > > +     int err;
>>> > > +
>>> > > +     err = serdev_device_write(phy->ser_dev,
>>> > > +                               out->data, out->len,
>>> > > +                               MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT);
>>> > > +     if (err < 0)
>>> > > +             return err;
>>> > > +
>>> > > +     return 0;
>>> > > +}
>>> > > +
>>> > > +static const struct s3fwrn5_phy_ops uart_phy_ops = {
>>> > > +     .set_wake = s3fwrn82_uart_set_wake,
>>> > > +     .set_mode = s3fwrn82_uart_set_mode,
>>> > > +     .get_mode = s3fwrn82_uart_get_mode,
>>> > > +     .write = s3fwrn82_uart_write,
>>> > > +};
>>> > > +
>>> > > +static int s3fwrn82_uart_read(struct serdev_device *serdev,
>>> > > +                           const unsigned char *data,
>>> > > +                           size_t count)
>>> > > +{
>>> > > +     struct s3fwrn82_uart_phy *phy =
>>> > > serdev_device_get_drvdata(serdev);
>>> > > +     size_t i;
>>> > > +
>>> > > +     for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
>>> > > +             skb_put_u8(phy->recv_skb, *data++);
>>> > > +
>>> > > +             if (phy->recv_skb->len < S3FWRN82_NCI_HEADER)
>>> > > +                     continue;
>>> > > +
>>> > > +             if ((phy->recv_skb->len - S3FWRN82_NCI_HEADER)
>>> > > +                             <
>>> > > phy->recv_skb->data[S3FWRN82_NCI_IDX])
>>> > > +                     continue;
>>> > > +
>>> > > +             s3fwrn5_recv_frame(phy->ndev, phy->recv_skb,
>>> > > phy->mode);
>>> > > +             phy->recv_skb = alloc_skb(NCI_SKB_BUFF_LEN,
>>> > > GFP_KERNEL);
>>> > > +             if (!phy->recv_skb)
>>> > > +                     return 0;
>>> > > +     }
>>> > > +
>>> > > +     return i;
>>> > > +}
>>> > > +
>>> > > +static struct serdev_device_ops s3fwrn82_serdev_ops = {
>>> >
>>> > const
>>> >
>>> > > +     .receive_buf = s3fwrn82_uart_read,
>>> > > +     .write_wakeup = serdev_device_write_wakeup,
>>> > > +};
>>> > > +
>>> > > +static const struct of_device_id s3fwrn82_uart_of_match[] = {
>>> > > +     { .compatible = "samsung,s3fwrn82-uart", },
>>> > > +     {},
>>> > > +};
>>> > > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, s3fwrn82_uart_of_match);
>>> > > +
>>> > > +static int s3fwrn82_uart_parse_dt(struct serdev_device *serdev)
>>> > > +{
>>> > > +     struct s3fwrn82_uart_phy *phy =
>>> > > serdev_device_get_drvdata(serdev);
>>> > > +     struct device_node *np = serdev->dev.of_node;
>>> > > +
>>> > > +     if (!np)
>>> > > +             return -ENODEV;
>>> > > +
>>> > > +     phy->gpio_en = of_get_named_gpio(np, "en-gpios", 0);
>>> > > +     if (!gpio_is_valid(phy->gpio_en))
>>> > > +             return -ENODEV;
>>> > > +
>>> > > +     phy->gpio_fw_wake = of_get_named_gpio(np, "wake-gpios", 0);
>>> >
>>> > You should not cast it it unsigned int. I'll fix the s3fwrn5 from
>>> > which
>>> > you copied this apparently.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Okay. I will fix it.
>>>
>>> > > +     if (!gpio_is_valid(phy->gpio_fw_wake))
>>> > > +             return -ENODEV;
>>> > > +
>>> > > +     return 0;
>>> > > +}
>>> > > +
>>> > > +static int s3fwrn82_uart_probe(struct serdev_device *serdev)
>>> > > +{
>>> > > +     struct s3fwrn82_uart_phy *phy;
>>> > > +     int ret = -ENOMEM;
>>> > > +
>>> > > +     phy = devm_kzalloc(&serdev->dev, sizeof(*phy), GFP_KERNEL);
>>> > > +     if (!phy)
>>> > > +             goto err_exit;
>>> > > +
>>> > > +     phy->recv_skb = alloc_skb(NCI_SKB_BUFF_LEN, GFP_KERNEL);
>>> > > +     if (!phy->recv_skb)
>>> > > +             goto err_free;
>>> > > +
>>> > > +     mutex_init(&phy->mutex);
>>> > > +     phy->mode = S3FWRN5_MODE_COLD;
>>> > > +
>>> > > +     phy->ser_dev = serdev;
>>> > > +     serdev_device_set_drvdata(serdev, phy);
>>> > > +     serdev_device_set_client_ops(serdev, &s3fwrn82_serdev_ops);
>>> > > +     ret = serdev_device_open(serdev);
>>> > > +     if (ret) {
>>> > > +             dev_err(&serdev->dev, "Unable to open device\n");
>>> > > +             goto err_skb;
>>> > > +     }
>>> > > +
>>> > > +     ret = serdev_device_set_baudrate(serdev, 115200);
>>> >
>>> > Why baudrate is fixed?
>>> >
>>>
>>> RN82 NFC chip only supports 115200 baudrate for UART.
>>
>> OK, I guess it could be extended in the future for other frequencies, if
>> needed.
>>
>>>
>>> > > +     if (ret != 115200) {
>>> > > +             ret = -EINVAL;
>>> > > +             goto err_serdev;
>>> > > +     }
>>> > > +
>>> > > +     serdev_device_set_flow_control(serdev, false);
>>> > > +
>>> > > +     ret = s3fwrn82_uart_parse_dt(serdev);
>>> > > +     if (ret < 0)
>>> > > +             goto err_serdev;
>>> > > +
>>> > > +     ret = devm_gpio_request_one(&phy->ser_dev->dev,
>>> > > +                                 phy->gpio_en,
>>> > > +                                 GPIOF_OUT_INIT_HIGH,
>>> > > +                                 "s3fwrn82_en");
>>> >
>>> > This is weirdly wrapped.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Did you ask about devem_gpio_request_one function's parenthesis and
>>> parameters?
>>> If it is right, I changed it after i ran the checkpatch.pl --strict and
>>> i saw message like the alignment should match open parenthesis.
>>
>> Yeah, but it does not mean to wrap after each argument. It should be
>> something like:
>>
>>         ret = devm_gpio_request_one(&phy->ser_dev->dev, phy->gpio_en,
>>                                     GPIOF_OUT_INIT_HIGH, "s3fwrn82_en");
>>
>>>
>>> > > +     if (ret < 0)
>>> > > +             goto err_serdev;
>>> > > +
>>> > > +     ret = devm_gpio_request_one(&phy->ser_dev->dev,
>>> > > +                                 phy->gpio_fw_wake,
>>> > > +                                 GPIOF_OUT_INIT_LOW,
>>> > > +                                 "s3fwrn82_fw_wake");
>>> > > +     if (ret < 0)
>>> > > +             goto err_serdev;
>>> > > +
>>> > > +     ret = s3fwrn5_probe(&phy->ndev, phy, &phy->ser_dev->dev,
>>> > > &uart_phy_ops);
>>> > > +     if (ret < 0)
>>> > > +             goto err_serdev;
>>> > > +
>>> > > +     return ret;
>>> > > +
>>> > > +err_serdev:
>>> > > +     serdev_device_close(serdev);
>>> > > +err_skb:
>>> > > +     kfree_skb(phy->recv_skb);
>>> > > +err_free:
>>> > > +     kfree(phy);
>>> >
>>> > Eee.... why? Did you test this code?
>>> >
>>>
>>> I didn't test this code. i just added this code as defense code.
>>> If the error happens, then allocated memory and device will be free
>>> according to the fail case.
>>
>> Really, this won't work. It's kind of obvious why... You cannot use
>> kfree() on memory which is not allocated with kzalloc(). Or IOW, you
>> cannot use it if it is being freed by devm.
>>
>> I doubt that you tested either this or the remove callback because if
>> you did test it, you would see easily:
>>
>
> Thanks to explain it in detail.
>
>> Please fix the double-free.
>>
>
> I understand it and will remove the kfree(phy).
> And i did the remove callback test using following echo command's
> parameters on raspberry pi.
> But i didn't see the error log like yours.
>
> Echo serial0-0 > /sys/bus/serial/devices/serial0/serial0-0/driver/unbind
>

Sorry to reply this email in a row.
I could see the log like yours when i changed the code at uart probe
functiom to make an error situation by force as below.
ret = -EINVAL;
     // s3fwrn5_probe(~~~

and i couldn't see the log when i removed the kfree(phy).
Thanks to mention it.


>> Best regards,
>> Krzysztof
>>
>>
>